Registrars are upset with fTLD Registry Services for trying to impose new rules on selling .bank domains that they say are “unreasonable”.

The Registrar Stakeholder Group formally relayed its concerns about a proposed revision of the .bank Registry-Registrar Agreement to ICANN at the weekend.

A key sticking point is fTLD’s demand that each registrar selling .bank domains have a dedicated .bank-branded web page.

Some registrars are not happy about this, saying it will “require extensive changes to the normal operation of the registrar.”

“Registrars should not be required to establish or maintain a “branded webpage” for any extension in order to offer said extension to its clients,” they told ICANN.

i gather that registrars without a full retail presence, such as corporate registrars that sell mainly offline, have a problem with this.

There’s also a slippery slope argument — if every gTLD required a branded web page, registrars would have hundreds of new storefronts to develop and maintain.

fTLD also wants registrars to more closely align their sales practices with its own, by submitting all registration requests from a single client in a single day via a bulk registration form, rather than live, or pay an extra $125 per-name fee.

This is to cut down on duplicate verification work at the registry, but registrars say it would put a “severe operational strain” on them.

There’s also a worry about a proposed change that would make registrars police the .bank namespace.

The new RRA says: “Registrar shall not enable, contribute to or willing aid any third party in violating Registry Operator’s standards, policies, procedures, or practices, and shall notify Registry Operator immediately upon becoming aware of any such violation.”

But registrars say this “will create a high liability risk for registrars” due to the possibility of accidentally overlooking abuse reports they receive.

The registrars’ complaints have been submitted to ICANN, which will have to decide whether fTLD is allowed to impose its new RRA or not.

The RrSG’s submission is not unanimously backed, however. One niche-specializing registrar, EnCirca, expressed strong support for the changes.

In a letter also sent to ICANN, it said that none of the proposed changes are “burdensome”, writing:

EnCirca fully supports the .BANK Registry’s efforts to ensure potential registrants are fully informed by Registrars of their obligations and limitations for .BANK. This helps avoid confusion and mis‐use by registrants, which can cause a loss of trust in the Registry’s stated mission and commitments to the banking community.

fTLD says the proposed changes would bring the .bank RRA in line with the RRA for .insurance, which it also operates.

The .insurance contract has already been signed by several registrars, it told ICANN.

Comments (2)

The only thing I have some doubts is making registrars having . TLD for TLDs that have registration restrictions, since registrar might not be able to qualify. Although formally it could be added to policy, from an overall Internet users perspective it might appear strange.

But making registrars having at least a dedicated landing page where no other TLDs are offered (unless afterwards in a bundle package) should be a minimum and every registry with a restricted TLD that can afford to ask registrars to make as such, should do so.

In the other issues I think that some middle-ground could be achieved; I can see both registrar and registry points in these questions.

I agree that having additional safeguards on .bank registration is a reasonable expectation. I am assuming that reg fee is likely higher for .bank than most new tld’s so the higher registrar cut of that fee would presumably offset the cost of having a dedicated webpage.